.• t': Q '·.> )

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------X DAVIDOFF HUTCHER & CITRON LLP,

Plaintiff,

-against-

DAVID WARREN DENENBERG, ESQ.,

Defendant.

----------------------------------------------------------------X

To the above-named defendant:

''

SUMMONS

Index No .. I S:f'!6 ~ / ..:Ja I 9 Date Purchased: IJ 7.JJ}rr Plaintiff designates New York County as the place of trial

The basis of venue is Plaintiffs residence in New York County

Plaintiff resides at: 605 Third Ave., NY, NY 10158

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance on plaintiff's attomey(s) within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day ofservice (or within 30 days after the service is completed if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State ofNew York), and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Dated: New York, New York September 22, 2014

605 ird A venue New York, New York 10158 (212) 557-7200

TO: . DAVID WARREN DENENBERG, ESQ. 2340 McCord A venue Merrick, New York 11566

503200v.l

' .

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------}( DAVIDOFF HUTCHER & CITRON LLP,

Plaintiff,

-against-

DAVID WARREN DENENBERG, ESQ.,

Defendant. ---~---------------~-----------------------------------~-------}(

• l

Inde}( No. -----

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

PlaintiffDavidoffHutcher & Citron LLP, prose ("Plaintiff' or "DHC"), as and for its

complaint against defendant David Warren Denenberg, Esq., respectfully alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This action arises out of the truly heinous criminal misconduct of Defendant,

David Warren Denenberg, Esq. ("Denenberg"), a rogue lawyer, as well as a current elected

public official, who has engaged in criminal conduct, betrayed the trust, and breached the

fiduciary duties of loyalty he owed, both to the law firm who employed him from 2006 until his

termination in 2014, and a client of the firm who paid him handsomely for services he claimed to

have, but did not render to them.

2. Denenberg's conduct was no accident. Rather, it was a cold, calculated scheme

willfully e}(ecuted and concealed by him over an at least 8 year period for his own pecuniary

benefit.

3. DHC was an unknowing victim of Denenberg's massive fraud, an unwitting

participant manipulated by an arch and devious criminal. As detailed below, DHC, upon

learning of this conduct, immediately sought to and has remedied the wrongs Denenberg

perpetrated.

499766v.5

. '

4. Denenberg's scheme involved causing DHC to repeatedly create and send to his

client and two of its subsidiaries (collectively, "Client")1 numerous false bills - billing

Denenberg's Client for non-existent work on cases that had already been terminated and/or never

existed. These bills - mailed via US Postal Service, or transmitted to the Client over the Internet,

all at Denenberg's direction - were works of fiction, created by Denenberg out of his .rich and

twisted imagination. Often times, these bills were accompanied by letters on DHC letterhead

signed by Denenberg, representing that they were accurate and constituted bills due and owing

by the Client. He billed the Client - in the name of DHC - for work purportedly done both by

Denenberg and attorneys who reported to him that had, in fact, never been done.

5. The Client paid over $2 million dollars in satisfaction of these fictitious bills.

6. Denenberg directly benefitted from this misconduct. Under his compensation

arrangement with DHC, Denenberg received a bonus equal to 25% of all fees collected from his

clients over a set minimum. In each year in which he perpetrated his scheme, Denenberg

exceeded this threshold with the aid of his fake bills. Indeed, in each year after 2006, each and

every dollar of Denenberg's false billings for the Client for legal fees represented a dollar by

which his originations exceeded the agreed threshold. As a result Denenberg received bonuses

of 25% on each of these fraudulent billings. Denenberg thus personally received a significant

portion of the funds collected from the Client as a result of his false bills. In addition, his 'base'

compensation which, by 2008, was $360,000 per year, was dependent on his false

representations as to the level of legal business he had, and the hard work he would and claimed

to have - but did not - provide to his clients.

1 At the request of the Client, it shall currently remain nameless. Denenberg is well aware of the identity of the Client, having been so informed in discussions with DHC.

2

499766v.5

l' l I' l

7. DHC was completely unaware that Denenberg was engaging in such misconduct.

Quite the contrary, DHC believed, based on Denenberg's word and deed, that these bills were

real, and represented charges legitimately billed to and owed by the Client for legal services

rendered.

8. Denenberg's misconduct did not end there. He also improperly billed and

collected expenses from DHC that were not incurred in furtherance of DHC business, or on

behalf of its clients, despite Denenberg's false representations to the contrary. Denenberg­

submitted numerous false vouchers to DHC, seeking reimbursement of expenses he claimed

were incurred on behalf of clients. DHC paid Denenberg for these expenses, and, at his

direction, listed them on draft bills to be reviewed by Denenberg for delivery to his clients.

Denenberg then struck a significant portion of these fake expenses from the bills he actually

authorized be sent out to the client, leaving DHC out the money it had paid Denenberg in

reimbursement.

9. By this conduct, Defendant Denenberg stole hundreds of thousands of additional

dollars directly from DHC based on his false representations that these were client expenses for

which he was entitled to reimbursement.

10. Upon DHC's discovery of this scheme, DHC promptly contacted the Client and

informed it of the same. Both concerns conducted investigations as to the scope of the

misconduct, and a settlement was reached, under which DHC will make full restitution to the

Client. Significantly, the Client has recognized and acknowledged that Denenberg acted alone

and that no one else at DHC was involved or knew of this horrific conduct.

11. DHC also promptly contacted Denenberg, and offered him an opportunity to

explain his actions. He refused.

3

499766v.5

12. Defendant Denenberg did, however, admit his misconduct. He was advised that

DHC had, to date, discovered two files for the Client in which this misconduct had occurred.

DHC sought to ascertain the scope of Denenberg's misconduct, so that it could address the same

with the Client. When asked if there were "any other cases besides this where it went on?"

Denenberg, admitting his guilt, replied "No." Unfortunately, this too was a lie, as there were

many more than two files involved.

13. Neither then or going forward has Denenberg showed any ·remorse for his

misconduct. At the initial meeting, when advised that he would be terminated by DHC effective

immediately because of this, Denenberg said I "don't want to be let go. You're going to make

me go? For this?" Needless to say, Denenberg was immediately terminated at the end of this

meeting, and barred from DHC's offices.

14. Denenberg refused thereafter to cooperate with DHC, or identify the fake bills he

had created.

15. Denenberg also admitted his guilt to the Client. At an August 2014 meeting

Denenberg had with the Client, Denenberg confessed to having sent false bills, seeking and

obtaining payment for services that had never been rendered. Denenberg confirmed that he acted

without the knowledge or consent of anyone at DHC.

16. Denenberg went to great lengths to perpetrate his fraud. Indeed, on at least one

occasion, he prepared a fake order from a United States District Court, in which the court

purported to grant Denenberg's client's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims

against it with prejudice. Denenberg had the temerity to sign this "order" in the name of a

United States Federal District Court Judge. Importantly, the court issued no such order. This

order is illustrative of the lengths Denenberg went to conceal his misconduct, and defraud both

DHC and his Client.

4

499766v.5

17. On another occasion, in a separate action, Denenberg created a fake Stipulated

Order of Dismissal with Prejudice of claims between plaintiff and the Client which again

purported to dismiss claims asserted in a federal court action against the Client. The "Order"

Denenberg created on this occasion indicated it had been signed by a different United States

District Court Judge. It too was a complete fabrication.

18. Denenberg's misconduct is made all the more egregious because he is, and has

been, an elected public official, serving as a Nassau County Legislator since 1999. Even more

galling, he is presently running for a seat in the New York State Senate, a campaign he has

continued to pursue even after he became aware that his misconduct had been discovered.

19. In this campaign, Denenberg's slogan is "Nobody Works Harder." Certainly, that

is not evident from the fake bills he created, falsely claiming to have worked hard for both DHC

and his Client. It is only true if one credits him with working hard to abuse the trust and faith of

his co-workers and clients, who would have been far better off having never met Denenberg.

20. DHC also promptly consulted a well-respected ethicist, to obtain advice as to how

to proceed. The ethicist advised that DHC cannot and should not disclose Denenberg's

misconduct to the appropriate authorities unless directed to do so by the Client, due, inter alia, to

the confidential nature of this information. DHC so apprised the Client, and awaited their

instructions. Upon learning that the Client determined the matter should be disclosed, DHC

commenced this action and brought the matter to the attention of the relevant authorities.

21. Because of his shameful misdeeds, as discussed more fully below, DHC brings

this-complaint, charging Denenberg with civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, committed via the predicate acts of mail

and wire fraud, as well as with fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, faithless servant,

unjust enrichment, and money had and received. It seeks to recover all compensation paid to

5

499766v.5

-.-

Denenberg during the period of his scheme- amounting to over $3.6 million, together with the

funds he improperly received as a result thereof. Under applicable statutes, plaintiff is also

entitled to treble damages, costs, attorney's fees, and punitive damages.

THE PARTIES

22. Plaintiff Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP is a limited liability partnership duly

organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of

business located at 605 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10158. DHC is a law firm engaged

in the practice oflaw.

23. Defendant David Warren Denenberg, Esq. is a lawyer who resides at 2340

McCord Avenue, Merrick, New York. From in or about July 2006 until June 11, 2014,

Denenberg was an employee of DHC, where he served as a lawyer, and the head of its

Intellectual Property practice. Defendant Denenberg worked out of DHC's Long Island office.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

24. Defendant Denenberg became an employee of DHC in or about July 2006. Prior

to his hire, he represented to DHC that he had a substantial 'book of business' which would

follow him from his prior firm. Based on Denenberg's representations as to the historical

amount of business he generated, work in progress, and manner in which such work would be

serviced, including the work he himself would perform, DHC agreed to hire Denenberg. Based

on his representations, by agreement, Denenberg's compensation was set at $325,000 per annum,

together with a bonus of 25% of all sums collected from clients he originated over $900,000 per

annum. In 2008, Denenberg's compensation was increased. Under his new arrangement,

Denenberg was to receive $360,000 per annum, together with a bonus of 25% of all sums

collected from clients he originated over $1 million per annum.

6

499766v.5

25. Pursuant to this agreement, Denenberg was paid by DHC the compensation set

forth below during the periods set forth below:

Compensation Paid Denenberg

Year Compensation Paid

2006 $87,486.32 2007 $475,000.08 2008 $405,752.00 2009 $457,533.00 2010 $520,102.00 201-1 $602,761.00 2012 $504,826.00 2013 $447,831.53 2014 $170,330.94

Total $3,671 ,622.87

These sums do not include additional sums paid to Denenberg in reimbursement for phony

expenses.

26. As the head of DHC's Intellectual Property practice, Denenberg was in charge of

the attorneys who worked in that group, which included at any time three or four other attorneys.

These attorneys reported to Denenberg, and performed services at his direction and under his

supervision.

27. In addition, as a DHC employee attorney, and head of its Intellectual Property

practice, Denenberg was permitted and given the authority to utilize the firm and its staff to

prepare and send bills to clients on matters for which Denenberg was the originating attorney,

and collect the same. As part of his duties to DHC, as well as to his clients, these bills (as well

as the time records discussed below) were to accurately reflect the time spent by attorneys

working on the client's matters, and the expenses incurred in connection therewith.

28. During his tenure at the firm, Denenberg and those reporting to him prepared time

records. As part of their duties to DHC, these time records were to accurately record the time

7

499766v.5

Denenberg and those reporting to him worked on a particular day for a particular client, and the

services provided.

29. In the ordinary course of its business, these time records were submitted to DHC's

accounting department, which compiled the same into draft bills. These draft bills included the

hourly rate applicable to the services in question, and the sums due therefor. These draft bills

were then submitted to Denenberg on those matters on which he was the originating attorney for

review and approval. After Denenberg completed his review, the bills would be finalized and, at

his direction, transmitted to the clients he originated for payment.

30. Unfortunately, from nearly the first day he joined DHC, and unbeknownst to it,

Denenberg engaged in a scheme to misuse its trust, and breach the fiduciary duties, and duties of

loyalty he owed both to DHC, as an attorney and employee thereof, as well as to the Client he

originated. Denenberg's scheme involved causing DHC to repeatedly create and send to his

Client numerous false bills - billing the Client for non-existent work on cases that had already

been terminated or did not exist. In so doing, Denenberg defrauded both DHC and the Client.

31. Under his scheme, Denenberg created fictitious time records, billing the Client for

services he purported to render that in fact were not rendered.

32. As Denenberg intended, these time records were submitted to DHC's accounting

department, who compiled them into draft bills to the Client, which were submitted to

Denenberg for his review and approval.

33. Denenberg reviewed these draft bills, and made modifications thereto, sometimes

adding time from other members of DHC's Intellectual Property practice to the bill. Such time,

as was his own, was fictious.

34. In addition, Denenberg also billed fake expenses to the Client. These charges

reflected expenses purportedly rendered in the service of the Client. This too, was untrue.

8

499766v.5

Denenberg, however, was personally reimbursed by DHC for these expenses, and pocketed these

funds.

35. After he was done creating these fake bills, he submitted them to DHC's

accounting department to be put in final form for submission to the Client. As he intended and

expected, DHC's accounting staff put the bills into final format, and returned them to

Denenberg. From the date he joined DHC in 2006 to in or about June, 2013, Denenberg directed

his assistant to, and these fake bills were, mailed via the US Postal service to the Client to obtain

payment. These bills were accompanied by correspondence, signed by Denenberg, falsely

representing that the bills were due and owing. Copies of all bills dated on or after August 1,

2008 were also uploaded to the website of a third party - Lawtrac - where they could be accessed

by both the Client and DHC personnel with the applicable passwords. By his conduct, as

aforesaid, Denenberg falsely represented to DHC and the Client that these bills were legitimate

and properly chargeable to the Client for services duly rendered, and expenses properly incurred

on their behalf. At the time Denenberg made these misrepresentations, he knew them to be false,

and made them to induce the Client to pay for services that had not been rendered, so he could

profit thereby.

36. Commencing m or about June 2013, the Client directed Denenberg to stop

transmitting bills to it via the US mail. For fake bills dated after June 2013, Denenberg followed

all of the steps of his scheme outlined above. Instead of transmitting the bills via mail sent at his

direction, however, Denenberg directed that DHC accounting personnel transmit these fake bills

to, and these fake bills were transmitted to the Client electronically over the Internet by

uploading them to the website of the third party Lawtrac, where they could be accessed by

personnel of both the Client and DHC with the applicable passwords. In so doing, and directing

DHC accounting personnel to transmit the bills to the Client electronically, and in emails he sent

9

499766v.S

directing the same, Denenberg again falsely represented to DHC and the Client that these bills

were legitimate and properly chargeable to the Client for services duly rendered, and expenses

properly incurred on their behalf. At the time Denenberg made these misrepresentations, he

knew them to be false, and made them to induce the Client to pay for services that had not been

rendered, so he could profit thereby.

37. In this fashion, Denenberg sent the Client over 374 fake invoices between 2006

and 2014.

38. The fake bills Denenberg caused to be sent to the Client in the manner described

in paragraphs 30-36 above include each of the invoices identified on Exhibit A hereto.

39. Defendant used the mails and wires as aforesaid to conduct the fraudulent acts

alleged above herein.

40. Upon information and belief, in furtherance of his scheme to defraud DHC and

the Client as aforesaid, Denenberg had interstate telephone calls with the Client pertaining both

to the fake services described in his fake bills, and the sums he represented were due as a result

thereof.

41. In actual and justifiable reliance on the fake bills Denenberg sent as aforesaid,

including each of invoices identified in Exhibit A hereto ("Invoices") and Denenberg's false

representations that the sums reflected thereon were due and owing for services rendered to, and

expenses incurred on the Client's behalf, the Client paid DHC the amounts billed in each of the

Invoices. From 2006 to 2014, the Client paid the sums represented as due in the Invoices by

repeatedly mailing checks therefor - via the U.S. Postal Service - to DHC. The use of the mails

in this fashion was in furtherance of and incidental to an essential part ofDenenberg's scheme to

defraud both DHC and the Client. Denenberg was at all times aware that the Client was using

the mails and U.S. Postal Service to transmit these payments to DHC.

10

499766v.5

42. Denenberg engaged in the scheme described above, in each of the matters listed

below. As a result of DHC's recent investigation into Denenberg's misconduct, in connection

with each of the matters listed below, Denenberg caused DHC to send fake bills to the Client, in

the amount listed below, billing for services that were not rendered, and expenses that were not

incurred. The amounts paid by the Client in satisfaction of these bills are also listed in the

schedule below:

Matter/Matter No. Fee Amount Exgense Bill Total Payment Amount Amount

Compression Labs $385,993.86 $12,208.92 $398,202.78 $378,716.88 11023.069

Furnace Brook $349,526.16 $14,080.77 $363,606.93 $337,319.07 11023.074

LG Electronics, Inc. $466,369.96 $25,617.62 $492,987.58 $489,429.97 7685.016

Intergraphic $312,811.31 $23,391.70 $336,203.01 $336,078.01 7685.036

LG Philips $466,628.13 $30,674.93 $497,303.06 $497,291.27 11023.040

Disco Vision $283,675.04 $20,097.40 $303,772.44 $303,772.44 11023.038

Total $2,265,004.46 $126,071.34 $2,392,075.80 $2,342,607.64

43. By approving the Invoices, and authorizing that they be sent to the Client,

Denenberg falsely represented to both DHC and the Client that the bills were legitimate, and

were for legal services and expenses incurred in their representation, which sums were now due

and owing. At the time Denenberg made these representations, he knew them to be false, and

made them to induce DHC to pay him bonuses based on the originations represented by his false

invoices to the Client.

11

499766v.5

12

499766v.S

representations to the contrary. Denenberg submitted numerous false vouchers to DHC, seeking

reimbursement of expenses he falsely represented were incurred on behalf of the Client. At the

time he submitted these false vouchers, Denenberg knew his representations that the same were

due and owing to him, and properly incurred in furtherance of DHC's business, were false, and

made the same to induce DHC to pay him for the same. In actual and justifiable reliance on

these false misrepresentations of Denenberg, DHC paid Denenberg for these expenses, and put

them on draft bills to be reviewed by Denenberg for delivery to the Client. Some of these fake

expenses - as set forth above, were billed to the Client. As to other fake expenses, Denenberg

struck them from the bills he authorized be sent to the Client, leaving DHC out the money it had

paid him in reimbursement therefor. All told, Denenberg collected from DHC at least an

additional $150,363.17 in fake expenses originally billed to, but ultimately not charged to the

Client in this fashion.

51. Defendant Denenberg's acts and misconduct, as aforesaid, were committed

wantonly, maliciously, intentionally and with reckless and willful disregard for the rights of

DHC. In addition, as an attorney and public official, such repeated misconduct, over such an

extended period of time, is outrageous, and represents an injury to the public, and undercuts their

faith in both attorneys and their elected officials.

AS AND FOR A FiRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation Of Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, Et

Seq.)

52. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1

to 51 hereof as if fully set forth herein.

53. By doing the above acts, and making the statements and engagmg m the

misconduct described above, Defendant Denenberg conducted the affairs of an enterprise

through a pattern of racketeering activity, which has caused injury to the business of the Plaintiff.

13

499766v.

54. Defendant Denenberg is a 'person' within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3).

55. DHC is an 'enterprise' within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).

56. Defendant Denenberg, by engaging in the above acts, and making the statements

and engaging in the misconduct described above, conducted the affairs of the enterprise DHC

through a pattern of racketeering activity.

57. This pattern of racketeering activity includes (a) numerous acts of mail fraud,

committed by the transmission through the US mail at Denenberg's direction of numerous false

invoices to the Client, intentionally and improperly seeking payment for services and expenses

not rendered, and letters signed in Denenberg's own hand claiming the sums reflected on these

bills are due, in an effort to fraudulently obtain payment therefor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1341 and (b) numerous acts of wire fraud, committed by the transmission electronically over the

Internet at Denenberg's direction of numerous false invoices to the Client by uploading the same

to a website maintained by the third party Lawtrac accessible to both the Client and DHC via

applicable passwords, intentionally and improperly seeking payment for services and expenses

not rendered, in an effort to fraudulently obtain payment therefor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1343,

58. Denenberg engaged in this pattern of racketeering activity beginning in July 2006,

and continuing until June 2014.

59. The foregoing acts of mail fraud and wire fraud were implemented through the

means and instrumentalities of Interstate Commerce,

60. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Denenberg's violation of 18 §

U.S.C. § 1962(c), plaintiffhas been injured in the operation of its business in an amount to be

determined at trial, but not less than $1,000,000.

14

499766v.5

61. Under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) plaintiff is entitled to bring this

action, and recover treble damages, the costs of bringing suit, and attorney's fees.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Faithless Servant)

62. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1

to 61 hereof as if fully set forth herein.

63. Defendants Denenberg, as an attorney employed by DHC, and the head of its

Intellectual Property practice, owed DHC fiduciary duties, including duties of good faith, loyalty

and candor.

64. Defendant Denenberg's tortious conduct and fraudulent acts, described above,

undertaken from the day he first joined DHC in July 2006, until the date of his termination in

June 2014, breached the fiduciary duties he owed to DHC. This persistent pattern of disloyalty

related to the performance of his duties as an employee attorney of DHC and the head of its

Intellectual Property practice, and included repeatedly creating and causing to be sent to the

Client false invoices, improperly billing the Client for non-existent work on cases that had

already been terminated, as well as for expenses not incurred on its behalf. It also included

improperly collecting funds from DHC, falsely claiming the same due him as reimbursement for

expenses expended on behalf ofDHC clients. It included creating numerous false time and other

billing records, falsely claiming to have rendered services he did not render. And it included

lying both to DHC and the Client, advising that the fake bills and time records he had created

represented bills due and owing for services rendered, when they had not been. It also included

concealing the same from, and failing to disclose this misconduct to, DHC

65. As a direct and proximate result of Denenberg's conduct, DHC has suffered

damages in an amount to be proven at trial. DHC is further entitled to forfeiture, disgorgement,

15

499766v.5

and a constructive trust over all money, property or other benefits received by Denenberg from

DHC during the period of the fiduciary breaches described above. Such sums, at a minimum,

constitute the over $3.6 million, received from Denenberg by DHC from July 2006 to the date of

his termination in June 2014. Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be

determined by the Court.

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud)

66. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1

to 65 hereof as if fully set forth herein.

67. In order to induce DHC to pay and continue to pay him compensation, including a

25% bonus on all originations in excess of agreed thresholds, as well as to reimburse him for

expenses he claimed to, but did not incur on behalf of DHC or its clients, and give him other

perks; including an office, and employ various staff to service his clients, Denenberg repeatedly

lied to DHC, and falsely represented that the invoices he created and caused to be sent to the

Client, described above, reflected services actually rendered to the Client, and that he was due

reimbursement for such expenses because they had been incurred on behalf ofDHC. In addition,

to induce DHC to pay and continue to pay him compensation, Denenberg repeatedly lied to

DHC, and falsely represented that the time records he submitted accurately reflected work he

performed on behalf of DHC's clients. Defendant Denenberg also repeatedly falsely represented

both that the originations he purportedly generated for DHC were properly earned, and that the

time he billed was in fact legitimately spent in the service of clients.

68. These misrepresentations were made by Denenberg repeatedly from the time he

joined DHC in July 2006, to the time of his termination in June 2014, and were made every time

he submitted a false time record to DHC, or a request for reimbursement of an expense not

16

incurred on behalf of DHC or its clients, or created or caused to be sent to the Client false bills,

for services that were not rendered.

69. Denenberg knew these representations were false at the time he made them.

70. DHC reasonably and actually relied on the foregoing misrepresentations to pay

Denenberg compensation he received from DHC from July 2006 to the time of his termination,

to its detriment. It also relied on these false representations in giving Denenberg an office,

maintaining and incurring the cost to hire staff to support his fictitious practice, and making other

expenditures.

71. Had it known the truth, DHC would not have paid Denenberg the compensation

he received, or any of it.

72. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, DHC has been damaged in an

amount to be determined at trial, but not less than the total compensation it paid Denenberg.

Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court.

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Tortious Interference With Business Relations)

73. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1

to 72 hereof as if fully set forth herein.

74. Defendant Denenberg knew and was fully aware that the Client had retained DHC

to render legal services to it, and had a business relationship with DHC.

75. Defendant Denenberg knowingly and intentionally interfered with said contract

and business relationship by engaging in the tortious misconduct described above.

76. By reason of the foregoing, DHC has been damaged in an amount to be

determined at trial but in no event less than $1,000,000, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive

damages in an amount to be determined by the Court.

17

499766v.5

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Money Had And Received)

77. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1

to 7 6 hereof as if fully set forth herein.

78. As a result of the foregoing, Defendant Denenberg has received and improperly

retained money that rightfully belongs to plaintiff and which should be paid over to it.

79. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Denenberg should be required to return to

Plaintiff the monies improperly received by him and/or be held liable to plaintiff for damages in

an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $1,000,000. Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive

damages in an amount to be determined by the Court.

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust Enrichment)

80. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1

to 79 hereof as if fully set forth herein.

81. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Denenberg is in possession of funds that he

should have not have received from plaintiff. By virtue of these actions, defendant Denenberg

has been unjustly enriched at the expense of plaintiff.

82. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Denenberg should be held liable to

plaintiff for damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than all compensation he

received from plaintiff during his employ~ent by the firm. Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive

damages in an amount to be determined by the Court.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion)

83. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs

1 through 82 hereof as if set forth in full herein.

18

499766v.5

84. Defendant Denenberg has, through his thefts, received and is in the possession of

monies belonging to Plaintiff, which he is not entitled to retain.

85. By retaining and failing to return to Plaintiff the monies he wrongfully received,

Defendant Denenberg has wrongfully exerCised dominion and control over Plaintiffs property,

thereby depriving Plaintiff of its ownership interests.

86. Such actions constitute a conversion of property rightfully belonging to Plaintiff.

87. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Denenberg should be required to return to

Plaintiff the monies improperly received by him and/or be held liable to plaintiff for damages in

an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than all compensation he received from plaintiff

during his employment by the firm. Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages in an amount to

be determined by the Court.

AS AND FOR A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Judgment)

88. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1

to 87 hereof as if fully set forth herein.

89. For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Denenberg is not due, and should not

be paid any compensation by DHC, for services purportedly rendered to the firm, and should

forfeit and return the same.

90. Denenberg claims that DHC owes him additional compensation for services he

purportedly rendered to DHC.

91. There is thus an actual, present and existing dispute and controversy concerning

Denenberg's claimed right to receive additional compensation from DHC.

19

499 v

92. Wherefore, plaintiff request that the Court resolve and adjudicate this dispute

between the parties by issuing a declaratory judgment confirming that plaintiff owes no further

compensation to Denenberg, as a result of his purported rendition of services to DHC.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff DHC respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in its

favor and against Defendant Denenberg:

on the First Cause of Action, for damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not

less than $1,000,000, together with cost. of suit, attorneys, and treble damages as

proscribed by statute,

on the Second Cause of Action for damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but not

less than all compensation paid to Denenberg by DHC, together with punitive damages in

an amount to be determined by the Court,

on the Third Cause of Action, for damages in an amount to be proven at trial, together

with punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court,

on the Fourth Cause of Action, for damages in an amount to be proven at trial, together

with punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court,

on the Fifth Cau.se of Action, for a return of the monies improperly received by

Defendant, and/or for damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than

$1,000,000, together with punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court,

on the Sixth Cause of Action, for damages in an amount to be proven at trial, together

with punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court,

on the Seventh Cause of Action, for a return of the monies improperly received by

Defendant, and/or for damages in an amount to be proven at trial, together with punitive

damages in an amount to be determined by the Court,

20

499766v.5

on the Eighth Cause of Action, for a declaratory judgment that DHC owes no further

sums to Denenberg for services purportedly rendered,

Together, on all causes of action, with an award of the costs and disbursements of this action,

and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York September 22, 2014

499766v.5

Respectfully submitted,

21

ProSe 605 Third A venue New York, New York 10158 (212) 557-7200

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

JEFFREY CITRON, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am a partner in, and one of the co-managing partners of Plaintiff Davidoff

Hutcher & Citron LLP in the above-captioned action.

2. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and know its contents. The Verified

Complaint is true to my knowledge except as to matters alleged on information and belief and as

to those matters I believe it to be true. My knowledge is based, in addition to my personal

knowledge, on the review of the books and records of Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, and an

investigation thereof conducted by employees and attorneys of Davidoff Hutcher & C'

pursuant to my direction.

Sworn to before me this 22.11J-day of September, 2014

.Vczo/-~ Notary Public

GARY I. LERNER NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK

NO. 02LE6070102 QUALIFIED IN NEW YORK COUNTY COMMISSION EXPIRES 4-17·2018

499766v.5

22

I •

.-...... : ·E····.·· ... ·.···.·x·····.·.···. ··n··· ..... ·I·······.··B·.··· .. ·· ...... I.··· · T.·.·· ·... . A··· . . . · .. : ·: ... · :. . .·. ·. ; :; > ... · - ·. . . . ·. . . :._~ - . . . . .. . : ._ . . . . . . : .· : . ·. . . .

. . . . .

Statement No. 110072 111156 111778 113308 113653 114627 115709 118143 119189 120428 121578 122575 124189 125285 126911 127626 130514 131344 132425 133181 134114 135172 136025 136910 137609 139051 140061 141220 141960 142950 144040 144631

'145506 146363 147367 148442 149456 150343 151409 155254 156191 157239 158056 158769

501082v.l

Exhibit A Systemax Fake Bills

Statement Date September 11, 2006 October 19, 2006 November 8, 2006 December 20, 2006 January 10, 2007 February 13, 2007 March 15,2007 April 12, 2007 May 9, 2007 June 12, 2007 July 17, 2007 August 14, 2007 October 9, 2007 November 12,2007 December 18,2007 January 11, 2008 April I 0, 2008 May 8, 2008 June 11, 2008 July 8, 2008 August 8, 2008 September 11, 2008 October 14, 2008 November 13,2008 December 10, 2008 January 16, 2009 February_ 10, 2009 March 12,2009 April 10, 2009 May 12,2009 June 12, 2009 July 9, 2009 August 12, 2009 Se_ptember 10, 2009 October 9, 2009 November 12, 2009 December 11, 2009 January 12, 2010 February 10, 2010 March 9, 2010 April9, 2010 May 12,2010 June 10, 2010 July 9, 2010 -

File No. 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T. 7685.016T 7685.016T 7685.016T

- '·' ; ~ .

159914 August 12, 20 1 0 7685.016T 160375 September 8, 2010 7685.016T 161372 October 7, 2010 7685.016T 162677 November 9, 2010 7685.016T 897705 December 9, 20 1 0 7685.016T 163943 January 6, 2011 7685.016T 165027 February 9, 2011 7685.016T 165958 March 8, 2011 7685.016T 166950 April 6, 2011 7685.016T 168617 May 10,2011 7685.016T 169646 June 7, 2011 7685.016T 170746 July 7, 2011 7685.016T 172136 August 12, 20 11 7685.016T 174133 September 7, 20 11 7685.016T 175055 October 5, 2011 7685.016T 176567 November 11, 2011 7685.016T 177323 December 12, 2011 7685.016T 179613 February 8, 2012 7685.016T 181984 AprilS, 2012 7685.016T 110074 September 11 , 2006 7685.036T 111158 October 19, 2006 7685.036T 111781 November 8, 2006 7685.03()T 113311 December 20, 2006 7685.036T 113656 January 10, 2007 7685.036T 114630 February 13, 2007 7685.036T 115711 March 15,2007 7685.036T 118145 April 12, 2007 7685.036T 119196 May 9, 2007 7685.036T 120435 June 12, 2007 7685.036T 121582 July 17, 2007 7685.036T 122578 August 14, 2007 7685.036T 123330 September 12, 2007 7685.036T 124191 October 9, 2007 7685.036T 125287 November 12, 2007 7685.036T 126615 December 18,2007 7685.036T 127629 January 11, 2008 7685.036T 128527 February 8, 2008 7685.036T 129464 March 10, 2008 7685.036T 130516 April 10, 2008 7685.036T 131346 May 8, 2008 7685.036T 132428 June 11, 2008 7685.036T 133183 JulyS, 2008 7685.036T 134116 At!gust 8, 2008 7685.036T 135174 September 11, 2008 7685.036T 136027 October 14, 2008 7685.036T

2 501082v.l

136912 November 13, 2008 7685.036T 137611 December 10, 2008 7685.036T 139052 January 16, 2009 7685.036T 140064 February 10, 2009 7685.036T 141223 March 12, 2009 7685.036T 141963 April10,2009 7685.036T 142953 May 12,2009 7685.036T 144043 June 12,2009 7685.036T 144633 July 9, 2009 7685.036T 145508 August 12, 2009 7685.036T 146367 September 10, 2009 7685.036T 147371 October 9, 2009 7685.036T 148446 November 12,2009 7685.036T 149458 December 11, 2009 7685.036T 150345 January 12, 2010 7685.036T 151411 February 10, 2010 7685.036T 155256 March 9, 2010 7685.036T 156193 April9, 2010 7685.036T 157241 May 12,'2010 7685.036T 158058 June 10, 1010 7685.036T 158771 July 9, 2010 7685.036T 159917 August 12, 20 1 0 7685.036T 111161 October 19, 2010 7685.036T 113314 December 20, 2010 7685.036T 113659 January 10, 2007 10945.058T 136031 October 14, 2008 10945.058T 110075 September 11, 2006 11023.038T 111159 October 19, 2006 11023.038T 111782 November 8, 2006 11023.038T 113312 December 20, 2006 11023.038T 113657 January 10, 2007 11023.038T 114631 February 13, 2007 11023.038T 115712 March 15, 2007 11023.038T 118146 April 12, 2007 11023.038T 119198 May 9, 2007 11023.038T 120437 June 12, 2007 11023.038T 121583 July 17, 2007 11023.038T 122579 August 14, 2007 11023.038T 123331 September 12, 2007 11023.038T 124192 October 9, 2007 11023.038T 125288 November 12,2007 11023.038T 126616 December 18, 2007 11023.038T 127630 January 11,2008 11023.038T 128528 February 8, 2008 11023.038T 129357 March 10, 2008 11023.038T

3 501082v.l

130517 April10, 2008 11023.038T 131347 May 8, 2008 11023.038T 132429 June 11, 2008 11023.038T 133185 July 8, 2008 11023.038T 134118 August 8, 2008 11023.038T 135175 September 11, 2008 11023.038T 136028 October 14, 2008 11023.038T 136913 November 13,2008 11023.038T 137612 December 10,2008 11023.038T 139053 January 16, 2009 11023.038T 140065 February 10, 2009 11023.038T 141224 March .12, 2009 11023.038T 110115 September J 1, 2006 11023-040T 111160 October 19, 2006 11023-040T 111783 November 8, 2006 11023-040T 113313 December 20, 2006 11023-040T 115713 March 15, 2007 11023-040T 118147 April 12, 2007 11023-040T 119199 May 9, 2007 11023-040T 120438 June 12, 2007 11023-040T 121584 July 17, 2007 11023-040T 122580 August 14,2007 11023-040T 123332 September 12, 2007 11023-040T 124193 October 9, 2007 11023-040T 125289 November 12,2007 11023-040T 126617 December 18,2007 11023-040T 127631 January 11,2008 11023-040T 128529 February 8, 2008 11023-040T 129358 March 10, 2008 11023-040T 130518 April 10, 2008 11023-040T 131348 May 8, 2008 11023-040T 132430 June 11, 2008 11023-040T 133186 July 8, 2008 11023-040T 134119 August 8, 2008 11023-040T 135176 September 11, 2008 11023-040T 136029 October 14, 2008 11023-040T 136914 November 13, 2008 11023-040T 137613 December 10,2008 11023-040T 139054 January 16, 2009 11023-040T 140066 February 10, 2009 11023-040T 141225 March 12, 2009 11023-040T 141965 April 10, 2009 11023-040T 142955 May 12,2009 11023-040T 144044 June 12, 2009 11023-040T 144634 July 9, 2009 11023-040T

4 501082v.I

145509 August 12, 2009 11023-040T 146368 September 10, 2009 11023-040T 147372 October9, 2009 11023-040T 148447 November 12,2009 11023-040T 149459 December 11, 2009 11023-040T 150346 January 12, 2010 11023-040T 151412 February 10, 2010 11023-040T 155257 March 9, 2010 11023-040T 156194 April 9, 2010 11023-040T 157242 May 12,2010 11023-040T 158059 June 10, 2010 11023-040T 158772 July 9, 2010 11023-040T 159918 August 12, 2010 11023-b40T 160378 September 8, 2010 11023-040T 161375 October 7, 2010 11023-040T 162680 November 9, 2010 11023-040T 897707 December 9, 2010 11023-040T 163945 January 6, 2011 11023-040T 165029 February 9, 2011 11023-040T 165960 March8, 2011 11023-040T 166953 April 6, 2011 11023-040T 168620 May 10,2011 11023-040T 169650 June 7, 2011 11023-040T 170747 July 7, 2011 11023-040T 172139 August 12, 2011 11023-040T 174135 September 7, 2011 11023-040T 175057 October 5, 2011 11023-040T 176569 November 9, 2011 11023-040T 177325 December 7, 20 11 11023-040T 178384 January 4, 2012 11023-040T 179615 February 8, 2012 11023-040T 181008 March 8, 2012 11023-040T 181986 April 5, 2012 11023-040T 183425 May 9, 2012 11023-040T 188196 September 6, 2012 11023-040T 189411 October 9, 2012 11023-040T 110080 September 11, 2006 11023.069T 111164 October 19, 2006 11023.069T 111785 November 8, 2006 11023.069T 113316 December 20, 2006 11023.069T 113661 January 10, 2007 11023.069T 114635 February 13, 2007 11023.069T 115715 March 15, 2007 11023.069T 118154 April 12, 2007 11023.069T 119206 May9, 2007 11023.069T

5 501082v.I

120446 June 12, 2007 11023.069T 121590 July 17, 2007 11023.069T 122583 August 14, 2007 11023.069T 124198 October 9, 2007 11023.069T 125294 November 12,2007 11023.069T 126912 December 18, 2007 11023.069T 127636 January 11,2008 11023.069T 128532 February 8, 2008 11023.069T 129361 March 10, 2008 11023.069T 130520 April10, 2008 11023.069T 133188 July 8, 2008 11023.069T 134122 August 8, 2008 11023.069T 135179 September 11, 2008 11023.069T 136034 October 14,2008 11023.069T 137615 December 10, 2008 11023.069T 139056 January 16, 2009 11023.069T 141228 March 12, 2009 11023.069T 141968 April 10, 2009 11023.069T 142958 May 12,2009 11023.069T 144046 June 12, 2009 11023.069T 145511 August 12, 2009 11023.069T 146370 September 10, 2009 11023.069T 147374 October 9, 2009 11023.069T 148450 November 12,2009 11023.069T 149462 December 11, 2009 11023.069T 150349 January 12, 2010 11023.069T 151415 February 10, 2010 11023.069T 155260 March9, 2010 11023.069T 156197 April 9, 2010 11023.069T 157244 May 12,2010 11023.069T 158061 June 10, 2010 11023.069T 158775 July 9, 2010 11023.069T 159920 August 12, 201 0 11023.069T 160380 September 8, 2010 11023.069T 161377 October 7, 2010 11023.069T 162681 November 9, 2010 11023.069T 897708 December 9, 2010 11023.069T 163946 January 6, 2011 11023.069T 165030 February 9, 2011 11023.069T 165961 March 8, 2011 11023.069T 166954 April 6, 2011 11023.069T 168621 May 10, 2011 11023.069T 169652 June 7, 2011 11023.069T 170749 July 7, 2011 11023.069T 172141 August 12, 20 11 11023.069T

6 501082v.l

174137 September 7, 2011 11023.069T 175058 October 5, 2011 11023.069T 176570 November 9, 2011 11023.069T 177326 December 7, 2011 11023.069T 178385 January 4, 2012 11023.069T 179616 February 8, 2012 11023.069T 181009 March 8, 2012 11023.069T 181987 April 5, 2012 11023.069T 183397 May 9, 2012 11023.069T 184425 June 7, 2012 11023.069T 185649 July 6, 2012 11023.069T 187396 August 9, 2012 11023.069T 188198 September 6, 2012 11023.069T 189412 October 9, 2012 11023.069T 190997 November 8, 2012 11023.069T 192075 December 6, 2012 11023.069T 193180 January 8, 2013 11023.069T 195611 February 22, 2013 11023.069T 196025 March 7, 2013 11023.069T 197259 April 8, 2013 11023.069T 198825 May 7, 2013 11023.069T 200011 June 6, 2013 11023.069T 201294 July 8, 2013 11023.069T 202878 August 8, 2013 11023.069T 204025 September 6, 2013 11023.069T 205299 October 7, 2013 11023.069T 206690 November 7, 2013 11023.069T 208177 December 5, 2013 11023.069T 210159 January 2, 2014 11023.069T 211481 February 4, 2014 11023.069T 212970 March 12, 2014 11023.069T 214860 April 1, 2014 11023.069T 216395 May_ 6, 2014 11023.069T 217737 June 3, 2014 11023.069T 122585 August 14, 2007 11023.074T 126625 December 18, 2007 11023.074T 127638 January 11, 2008 11023.074T 128534 February 8, 2008 11023.074T 129363 March 1 0, 2008 11023.074T 130522 AQ_ril 10, 2008 11023.074T 131352 May 8, 2008 11023.074T 132434 June 11, 2008 11023.074T 133189 July 8, 2008 11023.074T 134123 August 8, 2008 11023.074T 135180 September 11, 2008 11023.074T

7 501082v.l

136035 October 14, 2008 11023.074T 136920 November 13, 2008 11023.074T 137616 December 10, 2008 11023.074T 139057 January 16, 2009 11023.074T 141229 March 12, 2009 11023.074T 141969 April 1 0, 2009 11023.074T 144082 June 12, 2009 11023.074T 144638 July 9, 2009 11023.074T 149463 December 11, 2009 11023.074T 150350 January 12, 2010 11023.074T 151416 February 10, 2010 11023.074T 155261 March 9, 2010 11023.074T 156198 April 9, 2010 11023.074T 158062 June 10, 2010 11023.074T 159921 August 12, 20 1 0 11023.074T 160381 September 8, 2010 11023.074T 161378 October 7, 2010 11023.074T 897709 December 9, 2010 11023.074T 163947 January 6, 2011 11023.074T 165031 February 9, 2011 11023.074T 165962 March 8, 2011 11023.074T 166955 April 6, 2011 11023.074T 168622 May 10, 2011 11023.074T 169653 June 7, 2011 11023.074T 170750 July 7, 2011 11023.074T 172142 August 12, 2011 11023.074T 174138 September 7, 2011 11023.074T 175059 October 5, 2011 11023.074T 176571 November 9, 2011 11023.074T '

177327 December 7, 20 11 11023.074T 178386 January 4, 2012 11023.074T 179617 February 8, 2012 11023.074T 181010 March 8, 2012 11023.074T 181988 April 5, 2012 11023.074T 183398 May 9, 2012 11023.074T 184426 June 7, 2012 11023.074T 185659 July 6, 2012 11023.074T 187397 August 9,2012 11023.074T 188199 September 6, 2012 11023.074T 189413 October 9, 2012 11023.074T 190998 November 8, 2012 11023.074T 192076 December 6, 2012 11023.074T 193181 January 8, 2013 11023.074T 195612 February 22, 2013 11023.074T 196026 March 7, 2013 11023.074T

8 501082v.l

197260 Apri18, 2013 11023.074T 198826 May 7, 2013 11023.074T 200012 June 6, 2013 11023.074T 201295 July 8, 2013 11023.074T 202879 August 8, 2013 11023.074T 204026 September 6, 20 13 11023.074T 205300 October 7, 2013 11023.074T 206691 November 7, 2013 11023.074T 208178 December 5, 2013 11023.074T 210160 January 2, 2014 11023.074T 211482 February 4, 2014 11023.074T 212971 March 4, 2014 11023.074T 214861 April 1, 2014 11023.074T 216396 May 6, 2014 11023.074T 217738 June 3, 2014 11023.074T

9 50l082v.l

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

Index No.

DAVIDOFF BUTCHER & CITRON LLP,

Plaintiff,

-against-

DAVID WARREN DENENBERG, ESQ.,

Defendant.

SUMMONS AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT

DAVIDOFF HUTCHER & CITRON LLP Plaintiff ProSe

605 Third Avenue New York, NY 10158

(212) 557-7200

503335v.l